Slitherine

Ah yes, misread Julian's post, thought he was referring to deployment.

peterrjohnston wrote: .... If it's a "serious" competition, I'm probably
writing down their list anyway out of interest and they may be writing down mine too, so why be an arsehole about
giving a number that can be calculated in a few seconds?

Regards,
Peter

Dont beat about the bush. Say what you mean Mr moderator

Calling those with an opposite view to yours arseholes just invites a flame war - unless this is ok?

expendablecinc wrote:Dont beat about the bush. Say what you mean Mr moderator

Calling those with an opposite view to yours arseholes just invites a flame war - unless this is ok?

arse

On the original question, I can only think of one list where a “misdescription” on deployment is allowed -
Syracusan, where" "Mob can pretend to be "Offensive Spear"

There are bound to be others but I'm not looking through 9 books to find them

Spike

philqw78 wrote: arse

robin! to the facetious jet

spike wrote:
There are bound to be others but I'm not looking through 9 books to find them

10 books

nikgaukroger wrote:

spike wrote:
There are bound to be others but I'm not looking through 9 books to find them

10 books

I only have 9 so far, amazon have not sent the 10th one yet, and I dont get free copies unlike some

had this, this past weekend. Opponent suspected I had not put down all my BGs, and i had three very nicely placed ambush markers.

He then mused allowed, you know i played this guy once who insisted on adding up all the points so he would know if a PS(i) was in ambush somewhere.

I replied. Yep--annoying. I can tell you see less than 700 points. Do you want me to tell you exactly how much? The opponent said nope that answers my question.

I think the niec then about FoG is that the games are not about being more rule clever and cheap trick clever than the opponent.

In two games I was able to put a LF column partially behind the base of an enemy unit. My opponent immediately got worked up thinking there was some buttox of death strategy. I relieved them by saying its not enough you can evade right past it as it now stands. Give me another turn and the LF will be causing a problem. But that little toenail isn't enough.

As a former re-habbing DBx player I am truely thankful that most of the clever rule tricks are gone.

hazelbark wrote: buttox of death strategy.


gods! how i hated that!!!!!! !!!!!

how i love that it's gone!!! !!!!!


As a former re-habbing DBx player I am truely thankful that most of the clever rule tricks are gone.

me too!!!!

There is a FoG buttocks equivalent, maybe you haven't encountered it yet ...

nikgaukroger wrote:There is a FoG buttocks equivalent, maybe you haven't encountered it yet ...

There are somethings like it.

Stopping the break off.
Preventing a rout or evade.

What is the equivalent? It is hard to design a closed system without a lot of straight jackets.

Thems the sort of things. Related one is putting something alongside the enemy so they cannot physically turn 90 degrees due to base size (affects HF and mounted really) - this is probably the most annoying one; thankfully a lot less of the geometry than some other rules though

hazelbark wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:There is a FoG buttocks equivalent, maybe you haven't encountered it yet ...

There are somethings like it.

Stopping the break off.
Preventing a rout or evade.

Stopping a breakoff is similar to the buttocks of death in a positional sense (that is to say, where the necessary bases aare located), but not at all in a "cheese" sense. Were you talking about something else, Nik?



Marc

babyshark wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:There is a FoG buttocks equivalent, maybe you haven't encountered it yet ...

There are somethings like it.

Stopping the break off.
Preventing a rout or evade.

Stopping a breakoff is similar to the buttocks of death in a positional sense (that is to say, where the necessary bases aare located), but not at all in a "cheese" sense. Were you talking about something else, Nik?



Marc

I think one LF putting a corner behind a BG of 6 knights to stop a break-off and cause an automatic cohesion drop is fairly cheesy.

lawrenceg wrote:

babyshark wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

I think one LF putting a corner behind a BG of 6 knights to stop a break-off and cause an automatic cohesion drop is fairly cheesy.

Yes. that's why you should run knights in 4s.

expendablecinc wrote: Dont beat about the bush. Say what you mean Mr moderator

Well, I am saying what I mean. You're free to ask me how many points are missing, how many points
are in ambush or on a flank march. If you ask nicely (a beer bribe helps ) I'll even show you my
army list at the start of the game. Believe me, I really do not care.

It's toy soldiers, pushing prettily decorated lumps of lead around a table: it doesn't come much sillier
than that. So like I said, why be an arsehole about it?

mellis1644 wrote: Aren't lists checked and submitted in comp's for a reason - i.e. to ensure they are legal. Maybe if they have such an issue they should call an umpire to validate the opponents deployment vs calculating an opponents list and wasting playing time. I'm all for disclosure and do it as it helps the game, but why bother calculating an opponents points - there are other ways to see ambushes and force marches as discussed to this implies they don't trust others.

I think you missed the point. I think what his opponent was trying to work out is how many points are 'off table' thus get a strategic advantage in knowing if one, two, or maybe three ambush markers were real/fake, and if so how much to throw at them to ensure beating the ambush.

It's metagaming, and it's not right in my opinion. You should be able to look at the army and have a vague idea. I agree with some people here who might say 'you can see about 700ap' but that's volunteering info, and I'd even possibly answer a question to the order of 'about how many points can I see', but I'd also be vague about the points - probably in blocks of 50 points. I couldn't be bothered telling my opponent that he cannot see 54 points or 75 points, it would be 'about 700 or about 750.

Ian

petedalby wrote:It's a shame if that's your experience in Oz.

Oh, I'm not saying it's a pandemic in Australia, in fact all of my comp games bar one in Oz have been fantastic. What I'm saying is that a competition always brings out the worst in (some) people, like winning is more important than playing the game and having fun.

I hardly ever expect to win a comp... in fact I've never won a comp... but I've come second, and third, and I've had fun. I'd hate to be in the situation where winning was so important to me that I didn't have fun.

That's not to say that I've not had a few hissy fits. Of course I have, but I mean in general, across the 3 days (whatever) I'd hope I come away with a feeling of 'I had fun'. I think the award we should all strive for is the 'Jim MacLean' award. It's an award presented in Australia for the person who has shown a similar games mentality to Jim MacLean, who is a true gentleman, but can unfortunately no longer wargame. Strive for this one first, and then for winning comps. Jim MacLean would never have asked me how many points each BG was worth.

Regards,

Ian

expendablecinc wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote: .... If it's a "serious" competition, I'm probably
writing down their list anyway out of interest and they may be writing down mine too, so why be an arsehole about
giving a number that can be calculated in a few seconds?

Regards,
Peter

Dont beat about the bush. Say what you mean Mr moderator

Calling those with an opposite view to yours arseholes just invites a flame war - unless this is ok?

I have to agree with the ScythedC-in-C (or is it a flaming Pig CinC? I've always meant to ask, but never have).

If a Moderator can come out with the 'Arsehole' comment for a contrary viewpoint, then it's a sad state of affairs.

Ian

spike wrote:On the original question, I can only think of one list where a “misdescription” on deployment is allowed -
Syracusan, where" "Mob can pretend to be "Offensive Spear"

Yep, and I've used them .

The funny thing was that one guy I play regularly uses Spartan, and just before we played I'd soundly beaten his Spartiates. I deployed my own Offensive Spear with Lambda shields (I wanted to make them distinctive, as they were the only Poor Spear I had) and said "These are Protected/Poor/Undrilled/Offensive Spearmen - they found these pretty sheilds lying around a battlefield somewhere". The best sledge I've done yet. The good thing is that Geoff appreciated the sledge... at least I think he did.

After the game (where my Rowers disgused as Hoplites disguised as Spartiates) where I'd narrowly beaten his Spartans with my Syracusans again I told him the 'Spartiates were actually Rowers' and he said 'that just adds insult to injury'.

I don't think Rowers will work very often. I used them as a reserve, so they were effectively wasted points, but it may have affected where people put their attacks, or their desire to swing around and have a go at my baggage.

Ian